Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39633823›Full record

ArticleRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health2024

[Ethical standards for research involving persons with mental disabilities pursuant to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: a proposalPrincípios éticos para pesquisas com pessoas com deficiência intelectual de acordo com a Convenção sobre os Direitos das Pessoas com Deficiência: uma proposta].

Sarah Carracedo, Bernardo Aguilera, Renato Constantino

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sarah CarracedoPontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Perú. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú Lima Perú.
Bernardo AguileraFacultad de Medicina y Ciencia, Universidad San Sebastián, Santiago, Chile. Facultad de Medicina y Ciencia Universidad San Sebastián Santiago Chile.
Renato ConstantinoGrupo Interdisciplinario de Investigación en Discapacidad, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Perú. Grupo Interdisciplinario de Investigación en Discapacidad Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú Lima Perú.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International ethical standards for research involving persons who have diminished decision-making capacity allow for delegation of the decision to participate in research to a representative who can act as a surrogate decision-maker. However, this approach has been questioned by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), according to which all persons with disabilities, regardless of their mental or neurological condition, always have universal legal capacity to make decisions. The incompatibility between ethical standards and the CRPD is clear and impacts the conduct of research involving people with mental disabilities, which is essential for the improvement of their health and well-being. This article advances a proposal that seeks to reconcile the CRPD with ethical standards for informed consent processes in research and provides practical recommendations, especially for Latin American countries that still face challenges in implementing the CRPD in the research field.

Indexed as

Ethics, researchinformed consentpersons with mental disabilities

Identifiers

PMID39633823
PMCPMC11616466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.